Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Fri, 25 October 2019 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AA3F1209C4 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OxYv1FUYv68F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9275512099A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 10:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2804:431:c7f3:bff2:b8b3:4400:3123:ecb7] (unknown [IPv6:2804:431:c7f3:bff2:b8b3:4400:3123:ecb7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE04186A3F; Fri, 25 Oct 2019 19:34:07 +0200 (CEST)
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>
Cc: v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <m1iNIFE-0000IwC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <d1b6855d-bde9-7b53-4809-0846bb9772e4@si6networks.com> <CAO42Z2x7vudujw5t++obry56g=VNjQXXTHFK8pBPk0jmk78Bcg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJoHkZ8pTjszP0vw4BjX0HUhmPa6wJONzdy2JEm5iqAfBUvjRg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO42Z2wCYi4KWTEz1hUSPVr9+hu8GaHRkPuvQQ2P00knvnPaaQ@mail.gmail.com> <848BA3B3-36B4-4C42-86D0-88759BC45D5A@employees.org> <A61279DA-4678-4A10-9117-6CA227AE2FA5@cisco.com> <A90AD47E-00E2-4EAB-8BD8-142CC10A6B6F@employees.org>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <860c946a-c23c-4060-d83c-587302de28f8@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 14:19:16 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <A90AD47E-00E2-4EAB-8BD8-142CC10A6B6F@employees.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/zB1TwdJVMYeb4ml7S9iH38cm68c>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] SLAAC renum: Problem Statement & Operational workarounds
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 17:34:15 -0000

On 24/10/19 10:38, Ole Troan wrote:
> Eric,
> 
>> What about a "IPv6 renumbering considered harmful" or "Unstable DHCP-PD prefix considered harmful" ?
> 
> Perhaps, but isn't there a long list of documents the IETF has produced on IPV6 renumbering already?
> Would a new document say anything new and more useful?
> 
> And it's not like DHCPv6 PD (RFC3633) isn't clear either. From the abstract:
> 
>    The Prefix Delegation options provide a mechanism for automated
>    delegation of IPv6 prefixes using the Dynamic Host Configuration
>    Protocol (DHCP).  This mechanism is intended for delegating a long-
>    lived prefix from a delegating router to a requesting router, across
>    an administrative boundary, where the delegating router does not
>    require knowledge about the topology of the links in the network to
>    which the prefixes will be assigned.

Long-lived != immortal. As long as a prefix eventually changes, that is
when the problem may be experienced.



> That said, if people want to write a "IPv6 networks need stable prefixes" document, go ahead.
> I'm skeptical that playing with prefix timers and protocol mechanisms will do more than put lipstick on the pig.

It's not putting lipstick on a pig. In the current situation, hosts
essentially do not react to prefixes that fade away. This is something
that can be easily improved.


> Iff we wanted to solve ephemeral addressing / connectivity, that's would require something else.

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by ephemeral addressing /
connectivity?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492